If It's Sunday, It's Conservative

[hipsterdufus]

Media matters bought and paid for by the DNC:
Gee media matters where do you get your funding?

So you're more worried about the funding progressive media gets than the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. I see.

 

[BWG]

Gee media matters where do you get your funding?

Media Matters for America (MMFA), "a new Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media

Do you expect the RNC to fund an organization that corrects conservative misinformation :rofl

"If you go to Media Matters, there is usually video of the conservatives saying the fallacies Media Matters is refuting."

Does anyone have any rebutal to Media Matters contentions?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Do you expect the RNC to fund an organization that corrects conservative misinformation :rofl

Umm that's not what they do what they do is put their own misinformation out there, they're bought and paid for DNC character assasins nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So you're more worried about the funding progressive media gets than the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. I see.

No I'm worried that an organization funded by the DNC is going to be a mouthpiece for partisan propaganda. Your little group is a joke they're nothing more than bought and paid for character assasins for the DNC.

 

[BWG]

Do you expect the RNC to fund an organization that corrects conservative misinformation

Umm that's not what they do what they do is put their own misinformation out there, they're bought and paid for DNC character assasins nothing more, nothing less.

Pretend I'm from Missouri and 'Show Me'....LOL

Does anyone have any rebuttal to Media Matters contentions?

I'm guessing you just missed that part, right? I'm not saying that they are always right, because I don't always read everything they say. I have seen plenty disagree, but I've never seen anyone prove them wrong.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Pretend I'm from Missouri and 'Show Me'....LOL




I'm guessing you just missed that part, right? I'm not saying that they are always right, because I don't always read everything they say. I have seen plenty disagree, but I've never seen anyone prove them wrong.

I really don't care what a mouth piece for the DNC has to say they have no real evidence and as a matter of fact a non-partisan study from U.C.L.A. proved that the all of the media save for Fox News leans to the left.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I really don't care what a mouth piece for the DNC has to say they have no real evidence and as a matter of fact a non-partisan study from U.C.L.A. proved that the all of the media save for Fox News leans to the left.

Trajan, that UCLA study is so full of wholes, and has been so thoroughly debunked many times, I can't believe you would actually reference it.

 

[ptsdkid]

Trajan, that UCLA study is so full of wholes, and has been so thoroughly debunked many times, I can't believe you would actually reference it.

***Add in the fact that 87% of the media said they voted for Bill Clinton back in the nineties. That makes this debate over media bias, moot or a no brainer...you pick.

 

[hipsterdufus]

***Add in the fact that 87% of the media said they voted for Bill Clinton back in the nineties. That makes this debate over media bias, moot or a no brainer...you pick.

A better study would be how many voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004. A little more relevant data wouldn't you think?

Anyway, this debate is about the conservative bias of guests on the Sunday morning talk shows. Whether the reporters of a paper in San Fransisco voted one way or the other is what's moot here. :2wave:

 

[Navy Pride]

Media Matters has published a new report showing that conservative guests far outnumber progressive guests on the Sunday talk shows. The study is significant for several reasons. For years, I have sensed that these shows were skewed to the left, and now there is proof to back it up.

These shows are supposed to be neutral , journalistic shows, compared to opinion shows like O'Reilly or Scarborough. Clearly they are not. These shows give credibility to issues, and shape the opinions of very influental political thinkers.



http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

Full report here:
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/MMFA_Sunday_Show_Report.pdf

You have to be one of the biggest conspiracists I know hips................Only one news channel is halfway conservative so why would the liberal news networks do that?

 

[Axismaster]

I hate the fact that it is always about conservatives and liberals, but they never mention us libertarians. That is why I hate academia, or as I call it, hackademia.

 

[Navy Pride]

I hate the fact that it is always about conservatives and liberals, but they never mention us libertarians. That is why I hate academia, or as I call it, hackademia.

That is becasue right or wrong your party is a non factor.......

 

[hipsterdufus]

I hate the fact that it is always about conservatives and liberals, but they never mention us libertarians. That is why I hate academia, or as I call it, hackademia.

You could say the same thing about the Green Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party, America First Party, American Party, Labor Party, Knights Party (KKK), Reform Party, Independents or a host of other smaller parties...

For better or worse - it's a 2 party system in the US.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Tim Russert cracks me up. So on the first MTP after the Dems take control, he has John McCain and Lieberman on.

What a tool.....

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan, that UCLA study is so full of wholes, and has been so thoroughly debunked many times, I can't believe you would actually reference it.

By who? Media Matters? Give me a ****ing break, I've analyzed the methodology and it's sound.

 

[hipsterdufus]

By who? Media Matters? Give me a ****ing break, I've analyzed the methodology and it's sound.

As I've stated time and time again, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting debunked the UCLA study some time ago.

The UCLA study's methodology was based soley on participants from Think Tanks using a Rube Goldberg way to calculate bias.

Not that some on the right aren’t willing to try. Academics Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo got considerable attention for a paper they wrote called “A Measure of Media Bias” (12/04), which deduced a “strong liberal bias” from an analysis of news outlets’ use of “think tanks.” (The groups the study looks at are actually a combination of think tanks and advocacy groups.)

The report used a peculiar Rube Goldberg–like method to calculate media bias from think tank citations: Taking the Americans for Democratic Action ratings of congressional voting records as its yardstick, it assumed that media outlets have ideologies similar to those of members of Congress who cited the same think tanks that the media outlets did.

This approach is based on the problematic notion that politicians cite the think tanks that they most agree with rather than the ones whose citation will be the most politically effective—a problem the researchers acknowledge when they attempt to explain away some curious anomalies that their method produces. (The National Rifle Association comes out as a centrist group; the Rand Corporation turns out to be left-leaning.)

If the authors truly wanted to rank media outlets on the ADA scale, the simpler method would be to look at the ADA ratings of congressmembers quoted by those news outlets. One suspects that the authors avoided this obvious approach because the results would have been less to their liking: Studies in Extra! have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5–6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5–6/02) to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News’ Special Report (7–8/04). Fox News, according to Groseclose and Milyo’s method, is a “centrist” news outlet.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As I've stated time and time again, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting debunked the UCLA study some time ago.

The UCLA study's methodology was based soley on participants from Think Tanks using a Rube Goldberg way to calculate bias.


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534

FAIR just like media matters is an anti-conservative left wing mouthpiece I've analyzed the methodology and it's sound the FAIR proposed methodolgy is flawed becaue quoting more Republicans than Democrats doesn't necessarily mean that the Media Outlet's story was positive or supporting with the position of the Congressman in question. Furthermore; why would the FAIR point that the citations from the think tank are politically effective be contradictory to that politician agreeing with them? While making an argument do you quote sources that are contradictory to your position? That doesn't make any sense, if it's politically effective to cite the source then the source obviously agrees with their position and you obviously agree with the source.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote
(Burns and Allen? Say goodnight Gracie. )

I have studied this, the last sentence in the first post on this thread, I find it quite innocuous and probably legitimate.

So what is the problem?